Alternative Facts: The “Pro-Choice” Argument

This week marks the 44th anniversary of the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe vs Wade. 7 of the 9 unelected human beings on the Court ruled that it is a Constitutional Right for a mother to kill her child, depending on location. One of the most consistently well-attended, and greatly ignored yearly protests, The March for Life, is set for this Friday in D.C.. President Trump re-signed into law Reagan’s policy of not providing federal funds to any international organization that kills babies, Paul Ryan is leading the charge to defund Planned Parenthood, and we’ve been promised a pro-life Supreme Court Justice. All signs so far point to this administration being very against killing babies, and one of the most sure-fire ways to watch the Left lose their minds is to get in their way of killing babies.

So why is it that those on the Left advocate so strongly for the “right” to kill babies? If you ask them, they’ll give you a plethora of meaningless answers including, but not limited to: “It’s no one’s business what I do with my body,” “It’s not murder because it’s just a bundle of cells that needs me to survive,” “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” “People will still do it whether it’s legal or not,” and the ultimate “Women’s Rights are Human Rights.” Let’s take a look at some of these arguments.

Probably the loudest thing you’ve seen on your social media, or on the news from the “Woman’s March,” is TRUMP/MEN/OTHER PEOPLE DON’T GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY. They’re, of course, correct. As I’m fond of saying, nobody cares what other people do with their private lives. Those who are pro-life tend to lean to the Conservative side. They are not supportive of the government being all up in your business. So, let me say it very clearly for those in the back: I do not care what you do with your body. Not one bit. Live your life. I do care, however, what you do to the body inside your body. The Atlantic recently released a pro-abortion piece called “How the UltraSound Pushed the Idea that the Fetus is a Person.” This was in the same section as “How the Telescope Propagandized that There are Other Planets” and “How the X-Ray Made People Think that Bones Break.” The actual science deniers strike again. Contrary to the alternative facts used to justify the killing, there is a human being present inside every pregnant woman. You may not care, but your attempts to say there isn’t one are provably untrue. It’s literally science.

This brings us to the “Bundle of Cells” argument. Those who perpetuate this are either ignorant or liars. First off, I’m just a bundle of cells, you reading this are just a bundle of cells, and my daughter was a bundle of cells from the moment of her conception until this moment right now when I wish she was a sleeping bundle of cells. The particular number of cells in the bundle does not affect the humanity of said bundle. Location also doesn’t determine the humanity of a Bundle of Cells. Everyone agrees (for now) that once a baby is born, you shouldn’t be allowed to murder them. What is the difference in humanity between that moment, and the moment before when the child was still inside the mother? I wasn’t aware that vaginas magically bestow humanity.

Another popular argument is that women should be able to kill babies because those parasitic bundles of cells are dependent on them for survival. For those who don’t know this, the umbilical cord is still attached after the magical birth canal bestows rights on the baby. It appears we have reached an impasse. The location has changed, the baby is out, yet the bundle of cells is STILL anatomically attached. What do we do?! Your children are going to be living off your body in one way or another for at least 18 years (30 years if they major in Gender and Diversity Studies). So, does dependency take humanity away? If so, does a baby who is born, but requires life-support, not have a right to life? Can I suck out my father’s brains once he becomes too old and senile to live on his own? Get back to me, time is of the essence with this one.

We’re now going to play a small game called “When can we kill this baby?” using knowledge from a decade-old high school Child Development textbook. You can’t legally kill the human person once they’re born. Some pro-choicers, who aren’t completely murderous, believe that there should be a cut-off date. So Let’s Play! Months 7-9: The baby could survive outside the womb and utilizes 4 of the 5 senses. Ok to kill? Months 5-6: The baby is practicing their breathing with amniotic fluid, reflexively grasps the umbilical cord, and the mother and father can both feel very active movement. Ok to kill? Month 4 (this is the earliest the term “late term abortion” is used): Baby recognizes their mother’s voice, and their brains are capable of REM sleep, where dreaming occurs. Ok to kill? Week 12: Baby has all the nerves to experience pain, has vocal chords, and sucks their thumb. Ok to kill? Week 8: All organs are in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and the baby can hear. Ok to kill? Week 6: Brainwaves detected, mouth and nose distinguished. Ok to kill? Day 22: The baby’s heart is beating the baby’s blood, which is often different than the mother’s blood type. Ok to kill? Most of us agree it is bad to kill innocent humans. You tell me where the humanity begins. If you cannot say with any certainty when is the precise moment that Bundle of Cells magically turns into a person with inalienable rights, then the only option is to err on the side of preserving those rights.

Speaking of people who care about humanity, there is a lie promulgated by the pro-abortion crowd that all pro-lifers (and Conservatives in general) are just crazy religious folk that wish to impose a theocracy, and force their religious convictions upon all citizens. This is the “Rosaries off My Ovaries” shtick. Let me make something clear: Abortion is not a religious issue. It is a Human Rights issue. The Bible also condemns theft. Should that be legal because most major religions are against it? There are things that are right and things that are wrong no matter how you were raised, what you do on Sunday mornings, or who/what you worship. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to lump killing a child into that category.

Now that we’ve established that people are people and you don’t get to frivolously kill them, how do we feel about the “people are still going to have abortions even if you evil men outlaw it” argument? I don’t feel that I need to get into this too much. As is the case with every law, outlawing abortion would not completely elimate the practice, but it would significantly reduce the amount of it, as well as send a clear message that this is an unacceptable act. Evil actions should not be permitted in any society.

If you want to make certain decisions with your life, again, have a fun time. There is, unfortunately this thing called reality that the Left hates so much. I don’t know how to break this to you, but there are consequences for your actions and YOU have to deal with them, not the government. Take responsibility for yourself. Be a grown up. You have a right to make dumb decisions with your body, you do not have the right to have Daddy Government help you deal with the repercussions.

So, what did we learn today? Unborn babies are human beings. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. The right to life is a founding principle of this country. All the time. No situation or circumstance makes it acceptable to kill innocent human beings. I find it deeply hypocritical that those who are so concerned about their perceived “rights” are willing to overlook actual rights. Namely, the right to be alive. Those who push the pro-abortion agenda are either ignorant to these facts, or are aware of them, and simply don’t care. In this era where any information you seek is a click away, which is worse? I’ll let you make that choice.

________________________________-

Luke Garrison is currently studying Criminal Law and Constitutional Theory at Seattle University Law School, and is a graduate of The Catholic University of America. For Questions, Comments, or Hate Mail, he can be reached at contact@lukegarrison.com. To hear more from Luke, follow him on Twitter: @_lukegarrison.

Editor-In-Chief

Luke Garrison is a graduate of The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He is currently studying Criminal Law and Constitutional Theory at Seattle University Law School. Luke enjoys talking politics and triggering Social-Justice-Warriors while consuming dark beer and the occasional cigar.

Managing Editor

Step Into The Right's Managing Editor remains anonymous for professional purposes. Another victory of the Tolerant and Diverse Left. They are currently earning their Doctorate in American History, and are a Professor of History, Economics, and Government. They are also super attractive. We promise.

Contributors

-Ciaran Bruen is a graduate of Binghamton University, and is now pursuing his MBA. After interning on Capitol Hill, Ciaran worked for the New York State Government and worked on various Campaigns. When not working or studying, he enjoys playing golf and debating Leftists
-Joe Lizardi is a graduate of The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. A former intern for British Parliament, he is currently studying International Law at Pace University Law School. ​His hobbies
include studying law and politics, developing his eccentric taste in music, and mocking the sour disposition of regressive leftists.

Contact Us

For all questions, comments, or hate mail, we can be reached at contact@lukegarrison.com Follow me on Twitter! @IntoTheRight